Paper ballots necessary to preserve democracy

[helderheid]

By: KEN KARAN - Commentary

In a dramatic move, Secretary of State Debra Bowen decertified San Diego's Diebold electronic voting machines. While that move brought relief to defenders of democracy, those not so enamored with the will of the people found some relief in her offer to recertify the machines once conditions are met. But, the conditions are appropriately rigorous given the security required for elections.

Because the machines were not designed to be secure, and because election officials refuse to implement procedures necessary to mitigate the risks of that design, meeting the conditions for recertification will be difficult, if not impossible. This means that San Diego County officials must decide whether we will return to the use of touch-screens to cast and secretly count votes, vote on a tangible ballot that is also counted by secret software whether mailed in or not, or return to the most transparent and democratic method of elections and hand-count tangible ballots. Whatever direction we take regarding electronic voting after Bowen's decision, the bloom is off the rose. The emperor has no clothes.

Bowen's review of Diebold's products has revealed that they cannot be trusted with our votes. The decision to remove the risk of tampering from our elections is forcing San Diego County citizens to re-evaluate whether the convenience of computers justifies the risk to liberty. More fundamental than whether the machines can be made secure is the revelation of what can happen when elections are outsourced to the highest bidder or biggest campaign contributor. In a market-based model, elections are a commodity to sell. While the deal-makers profit, citizens are removed further and further from the process. Eventually, citizens come to believe that their right to participate in the tradition of self-government is limited to showing up at the pre-appointed time to press a button.

Secret vote-counting concentrates power in the hands of those who own the counting process. Removing citizens from the process of verifying elections undermines the very underpinnings of a democracy, which require that power must be dispersed to citizens. The alternative is tyranny.

The e-voting experiment will not end quietly. Vendors and officials are working feverishly to salvage their credibility after years of touting the security of the machines. The vendors are attacking the investigators for undermining confidence in their defective products. The county is trying to maintain its iron grip on elections by ensuring secret vote-counting continues in the guise of optical scanners. After all, three members of the same Board of Supervisors that brought us the e-voting fiasco are facing re-election. Honest elections create uncertainty in those depending on them for power. To protect Diebold's interest in getting paid and the county's control over elections, look for the board to cut a deal with Diebold whereby the county abandons the touch-screens and buys Diebold's optical scanners at the same price as the more expensive touch-screens.


MORE >>>

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/08/12/perspective/21_25_528_10_07.txt

[Mutineer]

1. Paper ballots are also subject to voter fraud

Nice essay but let's have a little reality on the sheer logistics of hand-counting ballots and the pitfalls of their tallying. I'm not sure ANY voting method is fool-proof and I think so far, they are all subject to fraud and manipulation.

[RC]

3. Shouldn't that be "Election" fraud?

Since 2000, Election Fraud has been rampant. Voter fraud isn't really much of a problem in most parts of the country.

[helderheid]

4. ANY system is vulnerable to "ELECTION" fraud - evote machines just make it that much easier.

[TreasonousBastard]

2. What's so special about paper ballots? Our lever machines...

have been working extremely well for 50 years or so, and eliminate problems with paper-- one less thing to worry about.

And, while I agree that there are problems with most of the current crop of Joker Poker machines being sold as electronic polling devices, there is nothing inherently wrong with a properly designed elctronic vote counter. To say there is would mean that every Diebold ATM, every NCR cash register and inventory system, every bank teller's terminal... all of them essentially inaccurate and subject to fraud and mistakes.

Having actually been involved in programming and standards setting for cash management systems, I know that a polling system is trivial compared to some of the sophisticated, and highly accurate, cash management systems out there.

There is this strange, but ancient, concept called an "audit trail."